Why HSBC £40m fine over mis-selling scandal gives marketing a bad name

December 6, 2011

Chris Barraclough is right. While the marketing community obsesses about Marks & Spencer lingerie ads, Size Zero models, Twitter trending and the monetisation of Facebook, it is almost entirely oblivious to some criminality of Dickensian proportions tarnishing its name.

Criminality? We’re talking big banks here, and yet another “mis-selling” scandal, although in truth the scandal involves everything from new product development through to sales, marketing and marcoms. Not to mention some truly appalling internal supervision, with a hint  of News International about it.

Villain of the piece is HSBC, Britain’s biggest bank, which has just been fined £10.5m by financial services regulator the FSA and ordered to pay back £29.5m to old age pensioners it had systematically swindled out of their savings over a period of 5 years.

It’s a complex story with many, unflattering, angles. Here are a few of them, to give the flavour. The mis-selling involved an investment bond with a capital protection element. The snag was, you had to put the money away for about 5 years or incur a huge financial penalty. Many of the 2,485 victims were very old; one was 94 – the average age was 83. Obviously, a large number had a life-expectancy shorter than the term of the bond. Yet, they were easy prey, not necessarily on account of mental infirmity but because they were 1) capital rich (compared to most of the rest of the population) and 2) very fearful of the eventual cost of living in a halfway decent care home. Quite a few sold their houses to fund what they were told was the answer to their financial prayers; on average, they handed over £115,000 each. The average loss was £11,790 per customer, spookily adjacent to the £11,500 commission over 5 years received by advisors who had helped to sell the product. The FSA judged that 87% of sales were “inappropriate”.

HSBC is not solely culpable. It bought the rogue organisation responsible, Nursing Home Fees Agency, long after it had been set up in 1991 – presumably on the basis that NHFA was a nice little earner (as indeed it was). Then, too, NHFA came highly recommended. Help the Aged, the charity, was being paid commission for passing on names to the NHFA, while the Royal British Legion listed the company as a place to seek advice on how to pay for care fees. NHFA salesmen were also aided by a listing in the government’s financial advice website at Direct.gov.uk.

For all I know, malpractice may date back two decades. But that hardly exonerates HSBC, which took 4 years to wake up to something being rotten and then to report it. NHFA was only closed down in July of this year.

Horrendous though this mugging of pensioners may be, it would be nice to think of it as an isolated incident. No such luck.  In January 2011 Barclays was fined £7.7m and ordered to pay £60m compensation to thousands of elderly victims of a similar mis-selling scandal. In April, the banks finally lost a case in the high court, after years of procrastination over the payment protection insurance scandal – making them liable for billions of pounds of compensation. In May, the Bank of Scotland, a subsidiary of Lloyds Banking Group, was fined £3.5m and forced to pay £17m compensation to elderly customers after – guess what? – selling them risky investments.

How do they get away with it? Well, because they can. These fines may seem astronomical by my standards or yours, but they are a spit in the ocean compared with the Big Fours’ bottom lines. HSBC, for example, made interim profits of about £7bn this year. Banks also benefit from a culture of impunity. This is usually taken to mean stratospheric and wholly unjustified annual bonuses, or irresponsible, arcane, casino investments that eventually bring the house down. It is equally apparent they have a licence to plunder the needy and vulnerable with little fear of meaningful retribution.

For that state of affairs we too, as Barraclough implies in his blog post, are partly responsible. And marketers, obsessed with youth and cutting-edge technology, especially so. Finance, particularly retail finance such as pensions, investment bonds and mutual funds, is nit-pickingly complex and unsexy. It’s also, as often as not, about an unsexy sector – the over 50s – who happen to own most of the nation’s wealth. So we defer to the so-called experts. These experts don’t mind being boring, in fact they positively revel in it. And you can well see why.

About these ads

Unilever gets dressing down for smutty Lynx ads, but ASA needs to widen its aim

November 23, 2011

It’s official: we, or rather our children, have been seeing far too much of Lucy Pinder’s ample cleavage, and it’s got to stop.

That is the verdict of ad regulator the Advertising Standards Authority on the latest Lynx online and poster ads, which show the glamour model in assorted demi-nues poses.

Whether in reality La Pinder, who routinely appears topless in a variety of newspapers and magazines freely available to all, is corrupting the nation’s youth by testing the power of Lynx’s anti-perspirant control remains highly debatable. But the fact is Unilever, owner of the Lynx brand and generally deemed a responsible advertiser, has clumsily transgressed one of the great contemporary pieties: the need to protect our little ones from the merest taint of precocious sexualisation.

This was a slow-motion accident waiting to happen. Lynx is inherently laddish. It self-consciously appeals to the sort of young male (17-27 years old) who avidly devours exactly the kind of mag in which Pinder tends to appear topless. Yet the difficulty for Unilever is not primarily the positioning of the brand – although its treatment of women as blatant sex objects does sit increasingly oddly with the infinitely more respectful approach adopted by Dove, also a Unilever brand. It is in the sloppiness of the media placement: a case of creative strategy being highjacked by the media buying/planning agency.

As a result, Unilever has become the first high-profile casualty of the David Cameron-endorsed Bailey Report, which strongly recommended protecting young children from just this kind of commercial “smut”. One key proposal was that there should be a clampdown on erotically-suggestive posters. And yet Unilever and its agencies wilfully went ahead with the idea. Despite the fact that, after pre-vetting, the ASA’s CAP Copy Advice unit had already cautioned the ad was likely to be banned.

Less obviously culpable, perhaps, is the placement of the online ads. That they have also been banned suggests you simply can’t be too careful these days when posting ads in such apparently child interest-free zones as Yahoo and Rotten Tomatoes.

I won’t say the ASA zealously hit the wrong target in singling out Lynx, because it didn’t. But let’s face it, when it comes to taste, decency and the issue of inappropriate commercial intrusion, the regulator needs to broaden its aim.

Take a look at this Littlewoods Christmas commercial (produced in-house) which is creating quite a furore on Facebook:

To quote from Marketing Magazine, which ran the story:

One [Facebook] commentator said: “I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it is too irresponsible to allow. It promotes copious spending, which is what started this damn credit crisis – people spending money that they haven’t got because they felt the need to compete with the Smiths, or buy love.”

Another commentator said: “What a great example to kids to know that what makes a mother a good one is how much over-expensive bling she buys them at Christmas.”

Quite. Corrupting our kids isn’t simply a matter of prematurely exposing them to seamy sex.


Flash Rob rioters hijack Blackberry brand

August 9, 2011

As if losing to Apple and Google in the duel for mastery of the smartphone and tablet markets were not bad enough, RIM’s Blackberry brand now has another problem to contend with.

Just as the upmarket Burberry brand was once appropriated by Chavs desperate for those trademark Rupert Bear scarves, so Blackberry’s slick image has been hijacked by rioters wreaking havoc across much of Greater London.

I don’t mean the phones have been looted from shops (though that may be true enough). No, this is far worse. The brand is now the communications weapon of choice for spotty hoodies texting their plans for countrywide mayhem.

The Telegraph notes laconically:

The BlackBerry phone, one of the first devices to offer mobile email, was once the preserve of business leaders and political aides but has become increasingly popular with members of urban gangs and teenagers.

And all because the BB Messenger service has a superior edge to other forms of social media. Twitter and Facebook leave a smoking gun for the police to pick up. Not so BBM, which can spread battleplans virally without them being traceable to individual perpetrators (apparently). RIM has always had a thing about security, now it’s obsession has come back to bite it in the bottom.

BBM is not the only marketing tool being turned to good account by rioters, however. Say hello to the Flash Rob, a pathological variant of the Flash Mob, in which sundry groups of delinquents meet up via social media to loot and burn specially targeted shops.

When it comes to social media, rioters are always going to be one step ahead of trundling Plod. After all, they’re the only ones young enough to really get it.


Facebook in decline? It’s a matter of trust

June 22, 2011

The trouble with urban myths is they have a habit of gaining credibility if enough people retweet them. No, not the one about Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson. This one is practically cosmic in its significance. Facebook, they say, is perched on the edge of vertiginous decline and will never make the 1 billion users its avid investors are banking on for an IPO.

The rumour appears to have begun with a plausible article, whose headline says nearly everything you need to know: ‘Facebook sees big traffic drops in US and Canada as it nears 700 million users worldwide’. I don’t want to become entwined in a discussion which has all the nit-picking allure of a symposium on the Arian heresy conducted by the early Roman Catholic church. So I won’t. The gist is that Facebook’s tsunami-like growth in developing countries conceals an actual audience decline of 6 million people in the USA during the month of May.

So far as the statistics are concerned, they seem to have been robustly rebutted by Henry Blodgett over at Business Insider. His distilled point is that the so-called decline ignores mobile use, which in fact increases steeply as high school kids and students pack up for the long vacation. So investors and advertisers can relax. There’s no decline at all, just a bit of a hiccup.

Whatever, it’s started people thinking – and many of these people seem to be older-profile Facebook users. A poll conducted by OnePoll among 1300 UK users for Marketing magazine reveals that a majority of over-45 year olds are considering exiting from Facebook. Youngers ones aren’t that chuffed either – more than a third said they had thought of quitting recently.

This may indeed illustrate Facebook fatigue, but more likely reflects growing alarm about Facebook’s perceived abuse of privacy (58% said they were unhappy about Facebook’s use of personal information).

Either way, Facebook should be concerned (although it says it is not). Forget the statistics. What matters here is engagement. As growth inevitably slows in the more advanced economies such as the USA and Britain, so Facebook will have to expend more effort on creating greater dwell time, by launching new and more useful tools. Alas, these tools come at a certain cost, if they are to be of use to advertisers – they involve ever-more sophisticated manipulation of personal information.


Facebook drives soaring digital ad expenditure

March 29, 2011

Recession, what recession? None at all where expenditure on digital advertising is concerned. After the merest hint of a stutter the year before last, the engine of growth has surged to new heights of performance. Annual spend is up nearly 13% according to the latest, and much awaited, biannual study by the Internet Advertising Bureau and PwC. That’s close to double the rate of recovery in the rest of UK media spend (7.2%) over the same period.

The easiest way to grasp the overall significance of the survey’s data – which is rich to the point of indigestion in statistics and trends – is to remember the 3 Quarters.

One quarter of all UK media spend – or £4.1bn – now goes online. That makes it nearly, but not quite, the biggest medium. Television remains ahead by a whisker (26% versus 25%), but is likely to experience slower growth. You can draw your own conclusions about what is happening to press and the rest.

One quarter of that £4.1bn (£945m precisely) is now spent on display. Search is still dominant (57%), but is enjoying a growth rate of “only” 8%. IAB chief executive Guy Phillipson attributes the power of digital display to 3 underlying factors: the general recovery in advertising confidence during 2010;  more importantly, “the power of online to build brands” (an issue which has held it back in the past); and faster and more reliable broadband delivery, which has helped to stimulate video streaming.

One quarter of all time spent online in the UK is dedicated to social media, of which by far the largest component is Facebook. According to ComScore, cited in NMA, the social network accounted for 81.6bn page impressions in Q4, 2010 alone. More than anything else, we could speculate, it is Facebook – with its enviable reach, dwell time, and video opportunities – which has given advertisers the confidence to plunge into online display in such a committed way.

Two other accelerants of growth are worth noting. First, packaged goods companies, for long sceptical about dipping their toes in the digital pond, are now within the top three digital online spending categories, outgunned only by finance and entertainment and media.

Second, mobile advertising budgets more than doubled (116%) last year to reach £83m. That may still be a small figure, compared with the online total, but it demonstrates beyond doubt advertiser confidence in smart phone platforms. While on this subject, a report just out from US consultants Borrell Associates identifies mobile as the key revenue driver in the internet’s most hotly contested battlefield, “local” (see Groupon, Craigslist etc).

For more on the IAB survey, check out its website.


Is the Neural Network the answer to McCann’s prayers?

March 22, 2011

You may not think there is much of a connection between a new car launch and what young McCann Erickson advertising executives get up to in a night-club.

But to Lee Daley, McCann Worldwide’s global chief strategy officer, making connections like that is fundamental to a new way of unlocking his agency’s intellectual assets, providing effective consumer insights at a fraction of their normal cost and repositioning the McCann name at the same time.

McCann has always been awarded penalty points in the agency world because of its sheer size. Its machine-like reputation probably dates back to a period of acquisition megalomania in the early sixties, when the agency was under the stewardship of Marion Harper. Result: it is valued for the sophistication of its global services and its account management skills, but rarely for its creative thinking.

In fact, this reputation is somewhat misleading. In the fifties, McCann was highly regarded for the quality of its consumer insights. Through Herta Herzog, director of creative research, it became high-priest to the mysteries of motivational psychology, the then voguish domain of Dr Ernest Dichter and the School of Motivational Research. It powerfully influenced the thinking of one Vance Packard, author of the Hidden Persuaders (1957).

In a sense, Daley is tapping into that “smarts” tradition. But his focus is on unlocking the hidden talents of McCann’s staff and thereby turning a perceived disadvantage, McCann’s cumbersome size, into an asset. “In a way, it’s simply a numbers game,” he tells me. “McCann has 22,000 employees worldwide. That’s a massive talent pool, but it’s fair to say we haven’t always exploited that creatively, partly because of our brand image. Compare that with so-called creative agencies, Wieden & Kennedy, Mother or whatever. Full of talent, no doubt, but a fraction of our pool.”

Ah yes, but how exactly does he intend to release that pent-up intellectual capital, and to what end, exactly? The answer is something called the Neural Network, a project Daly has been working on for about 5 years – and which now involves some 8,000 of McCann’s employees.

Expressed simply, NN is a kind of internalised social media platform (although Daly recoils in horror from the suggestion that it is Facebook for McCann). It builds up a profile which matches every employee’s formal status in the organisation with their private interests and areas of specialism outside their current expertise. It encourages the setting-up of special interest communities and dialogue between their members.

The advantages are clear. It’s a levelling tool in an hierarchical organisation, which can be used by management as a kind of crowd-sourcing resource or virtual pitch team. Also reasonable to assume, judging from the number of people who have volunteered to join the database: it’s quite motivating for staff – for whom it may open up new career opportunities.

The challenges are equally clear: it’s a levelling tool in an hierarchical organisation, about which senior management must initially have had considerable misgivings. Without suitable controls, it could indeed become a kind of office Facebook. And even when exploited professionally, anarchy might ensue if senior managers were allowed carte blanche in appropriating extra resources via the Neural Network.

For this reason, all requests are carefully monitored by a group of senior executives called “Neural Network Gods”. In London, the key executive is group chief Chris Macdonald. Others include Daly himself and McCann Worldgroup CEO Nick Brien. The process of control is still being mapped out as the Neural Network is gradually extended to the other 14,000 Worldwide employees.

Equally important, from Daly’s point of view, is the challenge of monetising ideas thrown up by the Neural Network as McCann’s intellectual property. As is well known in agency circles, ideas are what you give away in a pitch: it’s very difficult to patent them. Clients might well welcome the idea of a me-too Neural Network, persuade McCann to set it up, and then run off with it.

Daly has partly answered this problem by setting up a 3-year rolling contract with Santa Barbara-based IntroNetworks – the company that devised the software – which gives McCann exclusive licensing rights.

If other agencies want to jump on the NN bandwagon, they may of course do so. But they will have to build their own software, and that takes time. And time is what Daly hopes will give McCann its leading advantage.


Are you a Googler or a Zuckerbug?

January 26, 2011

Think carefully before you answer. There’s a great deal more at stake than the passing satisfaction of an intellectual parlour game.

What we – consumers and advertisers alike – are being asked to debate is the future shape of the internet – the way we approach it, the way we use it. Up to now, it’s been pretty much a search-shaped universe, moulded around the success of its greatest information engine. Now we’re being asked to look at it a different way – the social network way – thanks to the meteoric success of Facebook.

Whoever wins the battle of ideas also scoops the global jackpot. Russian oligarch Yuri Milner and investment bank Goldman Sachs have already made their bet. They stand to be the biggest financial winners when (rather than if) Facebook becomes a publicly quoted company. But what about the rest of us?

Superficially, Google has little to worry about. It has just produced a record set of fourth quarter figures. To those who complain that it is, strategically, a one-trick pony, it can point to success on other online platforms. Video, of course, with YouTube; and more promising still, a potentially market-leading position in mobile with the aid of sub-brands Android and Chrome. What it does not get – CEO Schmidt’s recent enigmatic remarks about developing “serendipitous search – search results searchers didn’t even know they needed” notwithstanding – is social. An upstart rival has excluded Google from the market’s most dynamic area of expansion; from zero in 2004, Facebook’s global reach is now approaching 600 million.

Which brings me to my column, posted on marketingweek.co.uk this week, and its focus on the recently announced change in leadership at Google.

Leadership is one of the paradoxes of this sector. The products and services are highly sophisticated, the organisations which create them highly complex, but the leadership issue is often brutally simple. Continued success frequently comes down to the single-minded vision of a guru-like founder.

Zuckerberg: The $50bn leadership question

Looking ahead, that may well be Facebook’s defining issue as it moves inexorably towards public ownership, with all the grown-up demands that makes on a company’s leadership.

It is a frightening thought that one of the world’s most powerful brands is – and will probably remain – the brainchild of a 26-year-old genius with borderline Asperger’s Syndrome (to take a cue from The Social Network). His obsession with teaching the world to communicate electronically was born out of his own inadequacy at chatting up Harvard girls. Let’s see how he manages in the adult world of the capital markets, where you don’t always get your own way.


Murdoch and Jobs – Frenemies of the Internet

November 22, 2010

Now we know why James Murdoch, heir apparent at NewsCorp, has been so messianic about the iPad recently. The Times/Sunday Times “apps” experiment is merely part of a bigger picture – perhaps a small one at that.

It has emerged – rather curiously via US fashion industry journal Women’s Wear Daily – that Murdoch Sr is working closely with Apple chief executive Steve Jobs on launching an entirely new, exclusively apps-driven newspaper (there will be no website or print ancillaries) that can be purchased on an iPad. Other tablet formats may follow (though Jobs’ views on this egalitarian gesture are unknown). What we can say is that the news vehicle will be called the Daily, that it will appear as early as the end of this month, that it has an upmarket skew, that it will cost 99 cents a week, and that it will probably be edited by NewsCorp’s blue-eyed boy Jesse Angelo, currently managing editor of The New York Post.

For the fuller implications of a personal alliance between these towering giants of the media and technology worlds, turn to Tim Berners-Lee. Spookily but – so far as I know – entirely independently, the founder of the internet has just published in Scientific American a searching critique of what he regards as internet abuse. Unwittingly, it provides considerable insight into why Murdoch and Jobs are batting in the same team.

Berners-Lee casts his net widely. He sees the internet – once a kind of communitarian brotherhood in virtual space – as increasingly under siege. The attack on its ‘inalienable’ freedoms comes from a number of sources, many of which are themselves firmly rooted in web culture. High on his list of targets, for example, are social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. To these he adds Google and US telecoms carrier Verizon, which earlier this year struck an agreement to exempt mobile access to the internet from web neutrality; that is, from the accepted principle that no web service may be prioritised over another by a pricing structure imposed on its delivery. And finally, he rounds on mobile and desktop applications – Apple’s in particular – which operate behind a walled garden of restricted access.

Berners-Lee’s wider point is that these forces have something in common. Each in its separate way is parcelling out the freedom to communicate on the internet by hiving off “silos of content”. Berners-Lee believes this development is a Bad Thing, because it will eventually choke off innovation by creating a more fragmented internet.

There is, however, another way of looking at Berners-Lee’s argument – and one likely to find far more favour with Messrs Murdoch and Jobs: turn it on its head.

While the internet remains a free, or “near-perfect” (in the economist’s jargon) market, no one can enjoy a lasting commercial advantage. Look no further than the record industry, or the media itself. This is good for internet joyriders, who want their news, views and music free, but unsustainable in the wider capitalist economy. Without a carefully managed investment programme and the principle of reasonable investor returns, innovation on the internet is just as likely to be stunted as it is by the dark forces of silo monopolies that Berners-Lee sees gathering on the virtual horizon.

Murdoch and Jobs have every reason to cooperate. The internet may, in the longer run, have much to lose if they do not.



Advertisers mull the hidden costs of child-proofing the web

September 1, 2010

The extension of the Advertising Standards Authority remit to corporate websites and social media content has not come a moment too soon.

The self-regulatory principle – and therein, the ability of advertisers to deflect calls for an unwieldy statutory alternative – is only as robust as its weakest link. And this was a very weak link – so flimsy that unscrupulous malefactors within the industry could, and did, drive a coach and horses through the CAP code. Since 2008, the ASA – which enforces CAP – has received more than 4,500 complaints about online content abuse. To which the lame – but unavoidable – rebuttal has been: that’s not our affair.

No doubt as billed, the new CAP code revisions comprises some of the most ambitiously scoped regulation in the world. The devil, of course, will be in policing the detail. There are at least two areas of concern here.

Punitive sanctions are notoriously more difficult to enforce online than they are with strictly regulated traditional media. The ASA has shrewdly enlisted Google’s help (Google is also supplying seed-corn capital to prime the pump of wider regulatory coverage). Among its options are to remove paid-for search ads linked to persistent offenders and, if necessary, to escalate the pressure by inserting the ASA’s own “name and shame” search ads opposite the offending site. This, of course, does not have the same force as an outright ban.

More subtle is the issue of scrutinising what constitutes code-breaking content and what does not. Nowhere, it seems, in the newly revised code is there a precise definition of “marketing communications”. Possibly for good legal reason. The boundary between self-promotion and “free editorial comment” is often a difficult one to draw. Nevertheless, the penalty in not defining it precisely will be a slow and – for the sometimes unwitting perpetrators – painful and expensive learning curve while case histories are built up. I doubt that the six-month induction period before the new restrictions are fully implemented will be long enough for the industry to get up to speed.

Let’s look at a rather alarming example of the depth of industry ignorance. ASA chairman Chris Smith, taking his cue from David Cameron’s warning about the sanctity of family values, portrays the revised code as having “the protection of children and consumers at its heart.” Coca-Cola recently, and notoriously, fired it digital agency, Lean Mean Fighting Machine, over a Facebook promotion for Dr Pepper that badly miscarried. No doubt the agency thought it was being smart and edgy when it inserted a cryptic reference to hardcore pornographic movie Two Girls One Cup into the copy. But the reference was wholly inappropriate for the 14-year old girl who ended up reading it – and whose mother subsequently blew the whistle on Coke’s irresponsible behaviour. Coke fired the agency and apologised fulsomely. But the chilling thing was Coke clearly had no idea what the reference meant, and no idea what its agency was up to. If an advertiser of this sophistication can make such an elementary blunder, what hope is there for everyone else?

The upshot of these revised regulations will be to promote a host of new hirings. At the ASA, to sift through the prodigious number of case studies generated; and at advertisers and their agencies, to monitor the new boundaries of acceptability.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 417 other followers

%d bloggers like this: